Talk:Rule 34/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Rule 34. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

A page with this title was previously deleted and restored. I've used it for a new article. Any help would be appreciated. Keahapana (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Prior discussions, that may be relevant, or may contain references that you can use.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 (Internet meme) (2009)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 of the Internet (Feb 2010)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 (Mar 2010) (Unrelated topic)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 22#Rules 34 (Jul 2010)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 19#Rule 34 (Sep 2010)

I'll withhold from commenting further, and wish you luck in finding more Reliable sources. –Quiddity (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, and thanks for providing these helpful links. Although I've just started with the low-hanging refs, there appear to be enough recent sources to meet WP:N. I noticed that you added a book review from wirenh.com, which I'm unfamiliar with. Should we add that? Keahapana (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I tracked down the updated link, but it's just a passing joke, so I'm afraid it isn't useful in any way. I'm not sure why I mentioned it in that old discussion (perhaps making a bad joke myself?). Sorry. –Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, but there's no need to apologize for aptly joking about a Net joke <grin>. I'll add some more refs today from Google Books. Keahapana (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has a whole bunch of references to back up the claims made. But they are mostly urban dictionary, news sites, and 4chan (!). This is really not the way to go, wikipedia. 92.151.213.229 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

4chan was not online before 2003, so 1993 timestamps must be some internal joke. There needs to be better sources, someone should look from BBS / newsgroups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.165.122 (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Even more than that, there is a link to Photobucket on that source that was provided. Photobucket literally didn't exist until 2005. The claim that these posts were made in 1993 are absolutely ridiculous.

also it is not even a link to 4chan but 4-ch -> http://4-ch.net/guide/view/introduction Elvis untot (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

For further proof, I made a post there on the same board. My post was marked 1993. You can see it here, post #637 -> http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1540327913 (OrangeCroutons (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC))

Where is the List of all the other rules, I Clearly remember reading it years ago, It stretched into the hundreds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.197.112 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with stuff like this is that it's notoriously difficult to find reliable sources for them. Rules 1, 2, 34, 35, and 63, as well as Godwin and Poe, are fairly well-known, but even then, it's tricky. In the article, as 229 said, the sources are dubious at best. I don't have the time right now to find better ones, but within the next few days I'll be able to do a refhunt. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/is-rule-34-actually-true-an-investigation-into-the-internet-s-most-risqu%C3%A9-law-1.403108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.49.211 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The current image of Wikiped-tan was a compromise in May 2018 between myself and an IP editor. There is a more direct example of rule 34 in this image although this is also more explicit. If Wikiped-tan is designated as not rule 34, then there is a direct rule 34 image available. Tutelary (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current image doesn't really do the topic justice, and that the other one doesn't either, as at most both are light ecchi. To be quite honest, adding images to this article is probably going to be somewhat difficult, like Overwatch and pornography, so what we have already is good enough. puggo (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how someone producing Wikiped-tan in a more revealing outfit than she was originally published does not qualify as rule 34. I really don't see the big controversy here, given that's the definition. The image linked above is the virtual mascot of a website: "Culture Japan"—Mirai Suenaga. Both of these images are textbook definitions of rule 34, although Mirai is a bit more direct. It is also quite exhausting to have the image be occasionally be removed by an editor who doesn't want to start a talk page discussion. The image has been in the article for months without question or controversy. Tutelary (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I said I think it's fine. You just asked for any criticism of the image. puggo (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The image uses child-like female features for a pornographic image. This is shocking & offensive & un necessary imo. A more appropriate example cartoon image would be someone wanking & cuming onto a computer screen. Db919 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No image is actually necessary. Those looked up topic don't need exposure to porn; the definition without image is adequate. Db919 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

We would require a consensus to prove your point, but you are in fact correct that the subject of the image is 17.^[1] The two guidelines that come close to discussing the topic of this issue are very vague and essentially leave it up to consensus or a reminder of US law, which would make this fine, as "lolicon" is legal in most states. puggo (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the US federal cutoff for minor as cited in Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Any image used to illustrate Rule 34 is per the defition porn. An image does not add to the definition and is un necessarily shocking and NSW to any who might be looking up Rule 34. Db919 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[15] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists [sic]". Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court.[16][17]

The request for en banc rehearing of United States v. Whorley from the Court of Appeals was denied on June 15, 2009. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on September 14, 2009, and denied on January 11, 2010, without comment.[18] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States Db919 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I will only answer the concerns about the image being "shocking and offensive and unnecessary imo". Rule 34 is an internet meme which is defined as Internet pornography exists concerning every conceivable topic.. This image does not show breasts or the vulva of the female, and as such, are a far cry from more graphic images that are repeatedly and controversially removed. Your personal disgust or offense at this image does not necessitate the removal: WP:CENSOR. This also meets the WP:GRATUITOUS burden, given it does not show more than is necessary. If you think of a conventional encyclopedia, I would expect the entry to, if appropriate, have a visual element to represent the subject. Giraffe has an image of a giraffe, for an example. The image is definitely pornography, as that's what the topic necessitates to have the image of. I have had a dispute where I attempted to use a lesser image and it was rejected--since it was simply fan service, and not pornography.

The latter issue is a legal concern regarding the placement of the image on Wikimedia's servers, at all. The image is currently hosted on Commons, so if this image is in fact illegal, it needs to be removed from all servers, scrubbed, and reported to the proper authorities. This is a matter for Wikimedia Legal to uncover, not simple editors on a talk page. Though I suspect that given Wikimedia hosts the Virgin Killer image even after controversy, this image is fine. My personal belief is that if the image doesn't have legal issues to it, it's appropriate and adequate for the page. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Tutelary You've restored the image File:Fan service by Wikipe-tan with bikini.jpg without a citation that it is an example of Rule 34. Per WP:BURDEN, please provide a citation that this particular image is an example of Rule 34. If no citation is forthcoming, the image must be removed per WP:OR. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to article content, and not images. There is no requirement that an image be published in a reliable source before it can be included in an article. In fact, the MOS doesn't have any requirement that images be cited, and indeed a proposal like it failed to gain community consensus. . The reason is that it would be too onerous to require images be cited. Images should obviously be relevant to the topic matter, in which I discussed in the above section. But is your issue more with the caption, or the image itself? With your ^{[citation needed]} tag, it made it seem as though the problem is the caption, and not necessarily the image at hand. Images should be placed on a page given they are relevant to the page at hand and enhance the text in some way, and are appropriate with the topic--which is determined by editor consensus. Do you seriously doubt that the image is not an example of rule 34? Tutelary (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I WP:CHALLENGE your assertion that File:Fan service by Wikipe-tan with bikini.jpg is an example of Rule 34. Wikipe-tan is an Moe Anthropomorphism — an "outgrowth of otaku subcultural habitus into sexual fantasies". The file is a slightly more explicit depiction of a highly sexualized character, not an example of rule 34. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Material =/= media. Like I said above, images do not require a citation, but simple editor consensus. Please stop citing WP:OR as this is not an original research situation, but an editor disagreement with media on a page. Though have you considered that it could be both? Rule 34 denotes that porn exists for every single topic, presumably including Wikipe-tan. (Though it's arguable that it's not even Wikipe-tan anymore, given the lack of Wiki ears.) Porn is defined as the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal. I'm sure girls in swimsuits could be considered pornographic and arousing to some users, thereby meeting the definition. Of course, if you want to make it unambiguous, there is a more explicit image that's not of Wikipe-tan that's available for use. Though I thought this image was more fitting and appropriate than the one more clearly designated as rule 34. Will not respond for ~13-15 hours due to sleep and work. Tutelary (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The image is fanservice, not pornographic. Rule 34 is about porn, and that image is not, by most standards, pornographic. It's sexy at best. It does not belong on this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It took me a good night sleep to see that. I have edited the article to include an actual example of Rule 34 that is non-disputable, linked in the above section. I'm willing to discuss this image as well, as I believe this one holds a much stronger argument for belonging than the previous image, given the dispute. Thank you EvergreenFir. You bring reason wherever I see you edit. Tutelary (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Billhpike continues to remove File:Nude Mirai Suenaga 20101218 2.jpg from the article, this time citing that it was a weak example and a violation of the WP:IUP. IUP is mainly concerned with copyright, non-free images, and is more for posterity than advisory. Like I had stated above, editors determine the appropriateness of an image per the page. As far as the image being "weak", we already have IP editors removing the image, even though it does not explicitly show genitalia or aerolas for their perceived dislike of the image. Adding an image with the stated features would exacerbate that. Billhpike, do you have an alternative image in mind? Specifically, there are more variations of this subject in mind, if you don't like the pose or framing of this image. I would also argue the fact that the original artist of the character published these more explicit versions adds more, not less credence to the use of them. Tutelary (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:IUP, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central". The image fails this criteria and should be excluded. The article states that rule 34 suggest[s] that if you can think of a pornographic scenario, theme, or style—no matter how esoteric or unlikely it may seem—then such porn will already have been made, and it will be available online. It is not "esoteric or unlikely" for a Moe character like Mirai Suenaga to be depicted in a sexualized manner. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to address your edit summary first. You stated that the image was "random cartoon porn". It is not random cartoon porn, it is an example of rule 34--which you admitted in the edit summary was "weak". The "random cartoon porn" in my view signifies your personal viewpoint on the subject, that you personally don't like the image and would like it removed. Actually addressing your wiki explanation, you should read the line right after that sentence. Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article. | The image is relevant and encyclopedic as it's a quintessential example of rule 34--full stop, period. The fact that it's not an esoteric example or that moe's are more likely to have explicit art drawn of them is of no consequence for the image, and such a thing is not required. Like I linked above, there are other variations of the same character with the same tasteful censorship of aerolas and genitals, if you simply don't like the specific image. If you don't want an image, period, I patently disagree. If you have a specific alternative image in mind, I'd be more than happy to see it. Side note: I really have to sleep. I'll be able to respond in ~15 hours time, similarly like last time. I hope this issue resolves itself like last time, as well. Perhaps in that time, another editor can give their thoughts. Tutelary (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've posted about this dicussion at WT:WikiProject Internet culture and WT:WikiProject Pornography — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. The more editors who state their thoughts, the more thorough the eventual WP:CONSENSUS. To editors who see this page, here are the following reasons I believe the image (or its variations of, linked above), should be included.

• Free and original work Not only is this image a free image, meaning it's under a free license, its character and its erotic format was created by the same original author. Therefore, there is no concern of copyright violations for a copyright derivative work.
• Adequate illustration of the primary topic This image is a quintessential example of rule 34, since it's an image of a normally clothed mascot for a website in a more erotic, nude form, qualifying as pornography--as the topic requires.
• Tasteful censorship Although Billhpike considered the example of rule 34 "weak", it has tasteful censorship of aerolas and genitals. Although not required and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, this could possibly be a compromise position to editors who normally see nude images as too explicit for wiki.
• Meets other wiki policies Satisfies WP:GRATUITOUS, as it only adequately displays bare minimum and does not provide gratuitous exposure for the sole reason of exposure. Tutelary (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• See no reason not to have it. Serves the purpose of the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• I can definitely see Bill's point that it is not "esoteric or unlikely" to depict a character like this is a sexualised manner, but I don't think the possibility of a better example existing is grounds to remove this image right now. If a more esoteric or unlikely example was located we could discuss replacing the image at that point. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A naked cartoon woman is a lame example, but yeah, it's not an incorrect example. Surely Wikipedia can do better, but until then it'll do. --99.238.178.46 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• A semi-nude picture of a character that has been created by the same company that created the actual character is in no way an example of Rule 34. It's not a fan-created image depicting porn at all. It's a horrible example and adds nothing to the article. In fact, it detracts from it. 58.70.122.21 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative, freely licensed work? Or do you just want to leave the page blank, without an image? There were several other editors, including myself, who agree that this image is an example of rule 34, though some have objections on how "strong" an example it is. I believe this image satisfies Wikipedia's policies and is an example of rule 34, but it's not most quintessential example, I know. But after perusing on Wikimedia Commons, there didn't seem to be any other good alternatives. Do note that we also have to be considerate of the idea of derivative works due to Rule 34 taking a known icon/character and producing porn of it, often without the copyright holder's permission. This image is very unique in that it doesn't have that concern, since both the character and the "porn" was released by the same author under a free license. Tutelary (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The only way that the anime image of a female child illustrates Rule 34 is if it is Porn. I agree that it detracts from the article; Rule 34 is not about the sexualization of children. Images of inanimate objects, or a clearly adult male cartoon with a computer, or maps, would BETTER illustrate the topic. It is difficult to believe free images fitting these criteria are not already available in wiki. The special persisent defense of THIS image (despite apparently years of objections) is puzzling, and suggests the defense is not rational or entirely forthright. Db919 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The only way that the anime image of a female child illustrates Rule 34 is if it is Porn. I agree that it detracts from the article; Rule 34 is not about the sexualization of children. Images of inanimate objects, or a clearly adult male cartoon with a computer, or maps, would BETTER illustrate the topic. It is difficult to believe free images fitting these criteria are not already available in wiki. The special persisent defense of THIS image (despite apparently years of objections) is puzzling, and suggests the defense is not rational or entirely forthright. Db919 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for double post; accidental. Db919 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe the image is a legal issue. If it is, then it would be more aptly discussed with Wikimedia's legal team per this URL, and not used as an argument on this talk page. If there is some law being broken here, it's already so far out of hands that it is not appropriate to even bring it up. It's like telling a dentist that someone stole some batteries at the convenience store. It's not the right avenue or appropriate measure. In any case, I've already made my position quite clear in my discussions. There exists a (very NSFW) category on Wikimedia Commons (do note that I'm not claiming all of the images in this cat are depictions of rule 34, just specific ones) that contains different poses of the same character, if you don't like this specific pose. There are several that include tasteful censorship of aerolas and genitals. I am also not opposed to a different image--one just needs to be presented, and demonstrated that it an appropriate image for the article. So I will ask you the same question I asked of the IP: Do you have an alternative, freely licensed work? Or do you just want to leave the page blank, without an image? Tutelary (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really porn, so not really illustrative. Maybe The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife? Octopodes exist, here's the porn to prove rule 34? --valereee (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Since rule 34 is a modern internet phenomenon, I don't think an ancient drawing is a good example. It's not like you see that image on any rule 34 imageboards. VF9 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the current image, as it was created for the sole purpose of demonstrating rule 34. Since some of those above think it doesn't show enough and others think it shows to much, I think that means it's striking the right balance. There aren't any better examples of modern rule 34 art anyway. VF9 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there an archived copy of this anywhere? I assume the site was "zoom-out.co.uk" but I don't know if any of the archives has a "search is all of this domain" function. The amount of data archive.org and the others gather must be staggering, and I'm guessing at least a tad bit exponential as time goes on.. At least it will push forward the development of the 500TB/in^2 (in^3?) optical storage technologies (and spin-offs) or whatever.

Sort of related to the "archive storage problem" - are there any good ways to do a really go automated AI to weed out 404 pages, redirects-that-go-nowhere, "that article has expired", "cute you've-reached-the-end-of-the-internet graphic" pages from archives. I have no idea what percetage of space they take up, but are quite annoying if you're looking for something. And I'd imagine they will grow as time goes on. Jimw338 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@VF9:: Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people saying things about Donald Trump is various chat rooms, blogs, forumThis s, etc. Well over 99.9% of them have no place on Wikipedia.

That similar statements are being made by fewer people about "Rule 34" does not establish that they belong here either.

"Know Your Meme" is not a recognized expert, it is a collection of anonymous postings by whomever chooses to visit the site.[1]

This article is not about those pseudonymous posters on reddit. This SPS is not a source of information about itself and this article is not about those posters on reddit.[2]

Yes, there are various websites about Donald Trump, Rule 34, bananas, hamsters as pets, and millions of other things. This article is not about those websites.[3]

The comic xkcd has run thousands of strips. Those strips mentions Rule 34, rotational inertia, love, FORTRAN, air and thousands of other topics that have Wikipedia articles. Other comics, TV shows, operas, films, songs, plays, speeches, journal articles, etc. discuss Richard Nixon, love, FORTRAN, etc. Virtually none of those mentions show up in Richard Nixon, love, FORTRAN, etc. Mentions like this are generally considered trivial "in popular culture" material. To include them litters articles with trivial mentions in scattered sources that don't really tell us anything meaningful about the topic. Richard Nixon was mentioned in "Mad Men", All the President's Men, "Ohio" by CSNY, the opera "Nixon in China", the movie "Dick", "Forrest Gump", Futurama, Madman Across the Water, etc.? We could list thousands of them, all trivial clutter. If, OTOH, a reliable source discussing the subject discusses the "in popular culture" reference as having meaningful impact on the subject, then you might have something (such is the case with Chevy Chase's impressions of Gerald Ford on Saturday Night Live, included in Gerald Ford by virtue of its coverage in the New York Times.[4]

Yes, TV Tropes exists. It is a SPS and this article is not about it. Their collection of submissions on Rule 34 is not discussing TV Tropes.[5]

Finally, in the future, when you make a change to an article and you are reverted by another editor, it is time to discuss the issue, not restore the information. This is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Following this cycle prevents edit warring and numerous misunderstandings. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:USINGSPS, a self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. In this case, for the statement "A Rule 34 article/definition/image/etc was first published by this website at this time and date," the webpage in question can be cited as a source. VF9 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Know your meme has an independent professional editorial and research staff that vets all submitted material. It's a secondary/tertiary source, and it's commonly cited by all major news organizations because it is widely considered a reliable source on internet culture. VF9 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You might be confusing WP:SPS with WP:PRIMARY, and per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, primary sources may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person —with access to the source but without specialist knowledge— will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. VF9 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And regarding trivia, per WP:TRIVIA, pop culture is not categorically trivial. Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public (and often vice versa). For an article on the pop culture itself, it's definitely not trivial. Using one of your examples, while the reference to Richard Nixon in "Forest Gump" isn't noted in the Richard Nixon article, it's definitely mentioned in the Forest Gump article, as it's a key part of the plot. VF9 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, thanks for hearing me out. Like I said in the edit summary, explaining and referencing internet culture (and pop culture in general) can be pretty tricky because there are often hardly any "traditional" sources, so I hope I got my point across. VF9 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The image requires a reliable source that explicitly links Mirai Suenaga to Rule 34. See also WP:SYN. The discussion above is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that it is, but without the benefit of the source that is mandated by Wikipedia policy (and yes, that does also cover images). Guy (help!) 20:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a unique requirement that I have never seen on any other article, nor image on this website. I don't believe that the original research policy covers images except manipulated images per WP:OI. The No original research policy states The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist emphasis, mine. Please provide a text quote and link to the exact policy that states that images are required to be reliably sourced. I frankly don't believe it exists, as it would inhibit nearly every article on this subject and would by default bar images from articles of lesser known figures or subjects, since they would be less inclined to have reliable sourced images. Images are not facts, allegations, or ideas--unless you are taking issue with the text that accompanies the image itself. Regarding the text itself, the image is a quintessential example of Rule 34, as Mirai Suenaga is a subject, and Internet pornography exists of her as a requirement for it to be considered rule 34, created by the owner of the character. I am willing to compromise and adjust the text of the image if that's your sticking point. Otherwise, the WP:CONSENSUS was decided months ago, and I would implore you to follow WP:BRD after your bold edit, since there's no second R in the WP:BRD policy. I have restored the image, pending the text quote citation in Wikipedia's policies that state images themselves have to be reliably sourced. If somehow such a citation is produced and exists in the form that you say it is, then I will advocate for changing it, as I believe such a policy is incompatible with Wikipedia as a whole. Tutelary (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Tutelary, that's because in most cases the images in an article are unambiguously linked. For example, I don't need a source to say that a picture of the Washington Monument is an illustration of the Washington Monument. Here, we have a picture that is asserted to be an exemplar of rule 34 but only on the basis of Wikipedia editors asserting that it is so. Guy (help!) 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So there is no requirement for images to be reliably sourced. You admit in your Washington Monument example that you don't need a source when it is plainly obvious or "unambiguously linked", ignoring the fact that you don't have a policy text citation stating that images need to be reliably sourced. I believe the same applies here for this image that you are advocating to exclude. The appropriateness of images for their respective pages would be subject to editor WP:CONSENSUS, of which there already was to include the image, and needing to comply with the manual of style, and Wikipedia's article on offensive material., both of which I believe support my case, and not yours. I've elaborated on why I believe the image is appropriate for this page in Talk:Rule_34_(Internet_meme)#Image, so I will not repeat the same points here. To Trivialists' point on their revert, images are not required to be from the same country as Wikipedia is based, and the image could be considered shocking to some, but I firmly believe meets its burden as its omission would make the article be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. The image is encyclopedic and the image itself was a compromise, including tasteful censorship. To Usernamekiran, your personal example is appreciated, and I agree with the sentiment that WP:COMMONSENSE is something that we should follow. I do believe that common sense would dictate that we do not need a reliable source when it's evident a consensus has already been met on this topic. Tutelary (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tutelary, Any content that is challenged, must be sourced. A picture of the Washington Monument that was challenged, would require a source - but anyone demanding a source for such an image might well find themselves in trouble because of the sky-is-blue nature of the claim.

EVERYTHING on Wikipedia, if challenged, requires sourcing. That is how it has always been. And WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is different from WP:CONSENSUS. Guy (help!) 21:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I still am not entirely sure on why images need to be cited, given that a previous requests for discussion on the subject failed to gain consensus for use. I don't want to edit war, and was waiting for other users to edit and give their thoughts on the subject. I might post to a noticeboard for further guidance, and will certainly notify you of that if/when I do so. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG and Tutelary: whenever i search for some rule #34 porn, i never search "wonder woman rule 34", or "tracer rule 34". On normal search engines, i use tracer porn; on dedicated porn search engines i simply use person's name. I think it is going to be very rare case where some reliable source will explain the rule with examples. Using any celebrity/character's naughty drawing is not WP:OR. It is merely WP:COMMONSENSE. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Usernamekiran, no, that is not how any of this works. Guy (help!) 08:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is know your meme a reliable source? Because I notice that article keeps citing Know your meme.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about it and 4Chan, but you're also complaining about XKCD. XKCD is a popular and stable site, and is not crowd-sourced.

There are a bunch of XKCD books, but there does not seem to be one with the given cartoon. So what? DavidHobby (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source per Wikipedia:KNOWYOURMEME — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's old news but it was hilarious and is an example of internet culture influencing modern day politics and governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocemccool (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That article is largely about a Meme

I have to admit that I felt the article was offensive. The talk page addresses the reliability of the article, its questionable presence on wikipedia, and also the potentially offensive nature of the article (with a discussion related to child pornography as it pertained to past-previous versions)

I had to step back and say the article is here on Wikipedia - the consensus opinion finds the article acceptable, and I had to approach editing the article professionally (as to improve it in some way), in a detached manner, and without personal bias. That is the nature of many a meme; something that spreads rapidly and titillates. Is this article encyclopedic content? I would say no in any afd discussion.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

you know there's a website called rule34.xxx 2.51.131.163 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)